BoxRec

Shirow wrote: ↑30 Mar 2018, 06:49 Good points. I'm shocked that it never occurred to me that if a winner fails a subsequent PED test the result should be changed to a DQ loss not just a NC.

I don't think a list of banned substances could be distributed as once you have a comprehensive list you can look for the loopholes, just in the same way that producers of legal highs and tax avoidance schemes get away with it.
The chemists will just synthesize something very slightly different that hasn't existed before and won't appear on the banned list.

I don't know why boxers can't sue for loss of future earnings, at the least, if they lose to a boxer who is found guilty of PED use. Shouldn't that be written into contracts as standard?

I very rarely watch these IFL videos but the interviewer doesn't seem that well informed. Is IFL boxing specific or just sport in general?

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑30 Mar 2018, 12:15

Shirow wrote: ↑30 Mar 2018, 06:49 Good points. I'm shocked that it never occurred to me that if a winner fails a subsequent PED test the result should be changed to a DQ loss not just a NC.

I don't think a list of banned substances could be distributed as once you have a comprehensive list you can look for the loopholes, just in the same way that producers of legal highs and tax avoidance schemes get away with it.
The chemists will just synthesize something very slightly different that hasn't existed before and won't appear on the banned list.

I don't know why boxers can't sue for loss of future earnings, at the least, if they lose to a boxer who is found guilty of PED use. Shouldn't that be written into contracts as standard?

I very rarely watch these IFL videos but the interviewer doesn't seem that well informed. Is IFL boxing specific or just sport in general?

The IFL guys are generally not particularly well informed or knowledgeable, despite it being a boxing specific channel.

Booth was bang on here.

mickey1975 wrote: ↑30 Mar 2018, 13:57

Boxerbeetle wrote: ↑30 Mar 2018, 12:15

Shirow wrote: ↑30 Mar 2018, 06:49 Good points. I'm shocked that it never occurred to me that if a winner fails a subsequent PED test the result should be changed to a DQ loss not just a NC.

I don't think a list of banned substances could be distributed as once you have a comprehensive list you can look for the loopholes, just in the same way that producers of legal highs and tax avoidance schemes get away with it.
The chemists will just synthesize something very slightly different that hasn't existed before and won't appear on the banned list.

I don't know why boxers can't sue for loss of future earnings, at the least, if they lose to a boxer who is found guilty of PED use. Shouldn't that be written into contracts as standard?

I very rarely watch these IFL videos but the interviewer doesn't seem that well informed. Is IFL boxing specific or just sport in general?

The IFL guys are generally not particularly well informed or knowledgeable, despite it being a boxing specific channel.

Booth was bang on here.

They are informed, they just let the interviewee say it for them.